Richard Howitt, rapporteur. − Mr President, our debate on the annual human rights report this year – although delayed – comes at an even more important time, because it allows us to make an input into the strategic review, which represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make human rights even more central to what we are about in the European Union. If human rights are indeed a silver thread, the review must demonstrate that there is a silver bullet.

In our vote tomorrow, we shall ask Baroness Ashton to appoint a special representative to ensure that Europe’s voice on human rights is heard clearly on the world stage and that human rights are put on an equal footing with other foreign policy working groups in the Council. Indeed, we warmly thank her for adopting these proposals in the course of our joint discussions.

We shall ask for a timetable to be set so that human rights focal points are designated in all our delegations worldwide. We ask for human rights organisations to be treated as partners and not simply as agents of delivery. We ask for concrete mechanisms so that allegations of human rights violations within Europe do not compromise our ability to promote human rights outside. Although it is always right to seek to protect those whose lives are at risk, there must be a major increase in the transparency of EU human rights policies, as accountability for those who abuse human rights can only be achieved if there is also accountability for those of us who seek to promote them.

In this report, we name six EU countries which have failed to legislate for the International Criminal Court. We say that the European Neighbourhood Policy is wrong to tolerate thirteen countries which have failed to either sign or to ratify the UN Protocol against Torture, and we name my own country – the United Kingdom – which has shamefully obstructed EU ratification of the EU Convention on Human Rights.

To the High Representative: I understand why you advocated ‘more for more’ in the wake of the Arab Spring, but we were negotiating improved trade terms with Gaddafi just four weeks before we started dropping bombs on him. Today we ask you to address the harder question of ‘less for less’. Suspending the EU’s international agreements is too blunt an instrument, and one which is too rarely used. We ask for country-by-country human rights benchmarks and indices and for mechanisms to enable their use for a real escalation of response.

Mr President, I have long argued that speaking up for human rights is more important than staying silent for the sake of European unity. This is why we should congratulate Belgium and Austria for voting for the inquiry into settlements in the Palestinian territories, and why we introduced an amendment maintaining support for the investigation of war crimes in Gaza. Whilst sincerely welcoming the cooperation of the shadow rapporteurs in not-always-easy circumstances, I regret that there was a left/right split in the votes at committee on this and on the issues of women’s rights, on discrimination against all religions and on justice for the victims of extraordinary rendition.

I hope that tomorrow all of us will vote together for human rights. In this report, too, I have particularly examined the issues of social media and of business and human rights. Just as there is a constant race for new technologies, there is a race between those harnessing new media for the purpose of liberation and those who seek to use it for repression. I do not hesitate to say that Vodafone must learn from doing Mubarak’s bidding or to give due credit to Google for refusing to be complicit with censorship in China. I hope to come back to all these issues in my report on corporate responsibility later this year.

Finally, we call for a new human rights tsar to be appointed in order to put Europe on an equal footing with the United States, where the post of Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy and Human Rights exists; mechanisms to ensure full compliance with human rights by the European Union within our own borders; concrete measures to demonstrate that we have learnt from past mistakes from before the Arab Spring; and an understanding that freedom of expression has a new meaning in a new media age. These are some of our key conclusions this year, and I commend them to the House.

Catherine Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. − Madam President, since 1983, when the European Parliament began adopting an annual report and resolution on human rights, this House has done more than any EU institution to focus on such issues.

While we may sometimes disagree about how best to champion respect for human rights globally, we stand united in our aim: to see a freer world, where people’s dignity is respected – wherever they may be from – and for the EU, and the External Action Service in particular, to play a key role in supporting people’s struggles for their rights.

Allow me now to turn to the report by Richard Howitt which is before us today. First of all, I want to congratulate him for achieving consensus across the political spectrum on this report. I believe it is essential reading for me, my colleagues in the Commission and my colleagues in the Council. The very first paragraph of the report is about coherence between the internal and external policies of the European Union – one of the main themes from the Communication of December. It is a particularly important theme for Parliament this week, since on Thursday it will hear statements from the Council and the Commission on the European Union’s accession to the European Convention on Human Rights.

Honourable members, ‘coherence’ might sound dry, but this really does mean that human rights can be woven into everything we do, in Europe and beyond. It means making sure that people everywhere benefit from the same universal rights, regardless of who they are or where they live.

The report also highlights the importance of accountability and the importance of our work in developing, in serious situations, the accountability that we have. I will pick out two themes that in a sense are very important both for coherence and accountability. Firstly, the role of women, especially as yesterday I met Michelle Bachelet to talk about the role of women and to sign agreements with UN Women on how to go forward and support women across the world. Secondly – especially at the present time – discrimination against people of faith, including Christians, and those who have other beliefs. Tolerance is at the heart of the European Union, and that is why we need to strengthen our policy on the freedom of religion or belief, which is fundamental to a free society.

The European Union must work continuously for the widest possible ratification, acceptance and approval of, and accession to, the Rome Statute. That work is progressing. So far, we have signed three bilateral agreements, including ICC clauses, and initialled another three, and we are negotiating another 15. We have also included ICC clauses in many of our ENP action plans.

We have the power to promote human rights by placing countries and regimes on a scale stretching between engagement and isolation and using human rights as a method of measuring how we should address our relationships with different countries.

Human rights have never been more important than they are now, nor indeed have they ever driven so many changes. If we simply look, for example, at what is happening throughout the Middle East and North Africa, men and women, young and old, representing the whole of society, have found the courage to assert their fundamental human rights. Some have been prepared to give their lives for freedom, dignity and a better future. I should like to pay tribute to all of them now.

The changes that they have brought, as Mr Howitt has said, required the EU to develop a new response to a changing neighbourhood. I believe we have risen to that challenge. Human rights and deep democracy are at the heart of our new approach, and I believe our partnerships with our neighbours are stronger and healthier as a result.

Our work at the UN Human Rights Council has also helped to reinforce and support these positive and domestically-driven developments. At the 19th session, which concluded on 28 March, the European Union resolution on Syria was adopted with a record vote of 41 in favour, out of a possible 47. Our resolution on human rights in Burma/Myanmar was adopted by consensus, as was the resolution on freedom of religion or belief.

The session was a success for the rights of individuals, who too often find themselves marginalised and ostracised. The successful panel on ‘Violence and Discrimination based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity’ was a remarkable achievement, for which all credit is due to South Africa’s leadership, together with Ban Ki-moon. It is unacceptable that 80 states still criminalise same-sex relations between consenting adults, and that seven even foresee the death penalty. This is totally incompatible with international human rights law.

I believe it is very, very important that Barbara Lochbihler and Laima Andrikienė were able to attend the Human Rights Council, where they addressed EU Heads of Mission and met with a wide range of international representatives. This is just another example of the important role of the European Parliament and the important way in which it is seen to promote human rights in the world.

My Communication of last December was designed as a contribution to what is an ongoing discussion within and between EU institutions on a more effective and comprehensive approach to human rights and democracy. Now that there has been time to consider what I put forward, I look forward to working with you on the shape of our future strategy.

As I confirmed to the Committee on Foreign Affairs on 20 March, work is in hand to pave the way for the appointment of a Special Representative for Human Rights as part of a package to put into practice the Joint Communication. It is important that this person be someone with a strong track record on international human rights.

At the same time, as was discussed at the ‘Gymnich’ meeting of foreign ministers, we want to agree a political declaration on what we want to achieve, and we want an action plan on how to put this into practice. This will bring together new initiatives as well as others that we have already launched. I am happy to confirm that the network of human rights focal points is nearly complete: 116 EU Delegations now have someone, and many have two, in both their political and cooperation sections.

On all of this, I want to work closely with the honourable Members. The review of EU human rights policy was first announced in this House. The appointment of a Special Representative was championed by this House. It is therefore natural that ongoing work on human rights and democracy should be in full cooperation with this House. I have written to the Chair of the Human Rights Sub-Committee to ask her to work with me to ensure the fullest possible participation in the drafting of the Joint Declaration.

To end as I began, I pay tribute to Mr Howitt for his work and I pay tribute to the European Parliament for its continuous work in support of human rights.

Leonidas Donskis, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, first and foremost, I would like to congratulate my colleague, Mr Howitt, on an excellent report. I believe that reaching agreement on political and moral matters on all sides of the spectrum of the European Parliament is a challenging and difficult task.

The report raises the question of whether human rights have become a central issue for the EU and whether we have succeeded in mainstreaming them as a pivotal aspect of foreign policy. At the same time, the question remains as to whether human rights have become a common denominator in a political and moral consensus across the political spectrum of this House and of the European Union.

With regard to obvious and outrageous violations of human rights – such as killing, the death penalty, torture, violations of freedom of expression, belief and conscience, and contempt for and persecution of LGBT people – I believe that we have common ground and that we share values and attitudes. Yes, I believe that the challenge of the future lies in our ability to identify and tackle less obvious, vague and elusive – not to say subtle – violations of human rights, such as selective justice, politicised trials and endemic corruption – all of which undermine any kind of fair and equal treatment of people – as well as illegitimate surveillance, abuse of psychiatry, government sponsored and state-coordinated campaigns of defamation, and slander and blackmail against dissenting individuals and human rights defenders.

In any case, I believe that the rapporteur has done an excellent job within the remit given to him. I believe that the report covers an immense territory of our agreements, sensibilities and expectations, for which I wholeheartedly congratulate Mr Howitt.

Sarah Ludford (ALDE). - Madam President, I am pleased that the rapporteur is backing the amendment that I originally tabled in committee on the need for European accountability for rendition and torture abuses if the EU is to lead in the promotion of human rights in the world. I hope it will get wide support in plenary and that we will also push all EU states to sign and ratify the Convention against Forced Disappearances.

The EU is taking an international lead on the abolition of the death penalty, but a reply to a written question that I put to the High Representative has not reassured me that EU funding for a regional partnership in central Asia and neighbouring countries against drug trafficking avoids indirect facilitation of the execution by Iran of drug smugglers. I have had the chance to mention this to her and I will take it further.

I applaud her work on amending the Torture Goods Regulation last year to require export controls on pharmaceutical drugs, like anaesthetics, which are being outrageously misused in lethal cocktails for executions, principally in the United States.

Finally, I would stress to Richard Howitt that I sought and obtained assurances that it is UK Government policy for the EU to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights. They are, perhaps, being a little anoraky about the details. I cannot speak for France, but I am told that in London there is no reneging on a policy commitment on the EU acceding to the Convention.

Struan Stevenson (ECR). - Madam President, Baroness Ashton will not be surprised that I cannot allow this opportunity to pass without mentioning Camp Ashraf. As you know, Baroness Ashton, 1 600 of the residents of Ashraf have now moved to Camp Liberty near Baghdad, which was supposed to be a temporary location where people would spend no more than a few weeks. In fact some have already been there for three months, and it looks as if they may be forced to stay there for much longer.

The camp is insufficient to accommodate this number of people. They are living in dilapidated containers; the infrastructure has broken down, and yet the Iraqi Government is not allowing them to conduct their own repairs. They are not being allowed to bring ambulances from Ashraf, to build ramps for disabled people or to build pathways over the gravelly surface to allow elderly and disabled people to communicate and walk around the camp.

Now, to make matters worse, the Iraqi government has allowed representatives of the Ministry of Intelligence from Iran to take up location next to the camp. This is a breach of human rights. Please, Baroness Ashton, take some tough action against the Iraqi Government: tell them that they must accede to the demands of the residents of Ashraf.

Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). - Madam President, I quote the rapporteur: ‘For the EU to be a credible actor, […] it must act consistently […] and avoid double standards […] between internal and external policies’ – that is, it must not itself practise what it condemns in others.

Tyrannies ban or seek to ban political parties, but then so do Belgium and Germany. Tyrannies ban heretical opinion on academic subjects – but do not think that begins and ends with the prosecution in Turkey of Orhan Pamuk; France passed a history heresy law only this year, and several other EU countries have similar laws. Tyrannies lock people up for expressing different political opinions from those of the political class. The unsuccessful prosecution of Geert Wilders had scarcely passed when we saw in this Parliament the unlovely spectacle of the ‘Commissar’ for Justice, no less, drooling over the possibility of jailing Wilders for his website.

Before the countries of the EU seek to spread the appreciation of human rights beyond their borders, they should put their own houses in order.

Ana Gomes (S&D). - Madam President, ahead of a political declaration by the EU Foreign Ministers on a new EU human rights strategy and the appointment of a special representative on human rights, I urge Mrs Ashton and the EU Member States to consider Parliament’s concerns and demands included in this important report by my colleague Richard Howitt, for which I thank him.

I second his call for colleagues on the right in this House to reconsider their vote on re-tabled amendments on LGBT, people’s human rights, women’s sexual and reproductive health, European accountability as regards torture renditions and secret prisons and war crimes in Gaza. I believe we need to be coherent and consistent in order to ensure that the promotion of human rights and democracy is indeed at the core of our external action.

We have lessons to learn from the Arab Spring and we need to put an end to the support for oppressive regimes under the pretext of security, stability and economic interests. Take Ethiopia for example: an oppressive regime that is a main beneficiary of EU development assistance.

‘More for more’ must also mean ‘less for less’, as we say in this report. This means that we need smart, more active support for civil society. All actors of democratisation must ensure that security, trade and development and other policies take account of efforts in human rights and democratisation.

All levels of EU staff, including staff in the EU delegations and the heads of delegation, must have adequate training in human rights. The new strategy must bear scrutiny from Parliament, the media and civil society. Country strategies, papers and human rights benchmarks must provide for timely consultation with civil society and must be made public.

I hope that you, Mrs Ashton, and our ministers, when they visit any of these countries where human rights defenders and activists face difficulties, make a point of meeting them and reporting back on their concerns.

Emer Costello (S&D). - Madam President, I welcome this report and would like to congratulate the rapporteur, Richard Howitt.

There are two issues in this report that I specifically want to address. First of all, the importance of the EU seeking accountability for breaches of international law, to which Baroness Ashton has already referred. In this respect I want to offer my full support for Amendment 4 in relation to Gaza and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. As I have said previously in this House, I believe that the EU must demonstrate coherence between its policies and policy resolutions on the one hand, and our external and bilateral arrangements on the other.

Secondly, I would like to raise the issue of LGBT rights, and specifically the issue of gender identity. I specifically want to support Amendments 7 and 8, which I believe would strengthen the report in this regard. I support the call for the withdrawal of gender identity from the list of mental and behavioural disorders. It is unacceptable that transgender people have to be diagnosed with a mental disorder in order to have their identity recognised and have a passport issued in their new identity. That is a complete violation of the rights of transgender people.

Eduard Kukan (PPE). - Madam President, congratulations to Richard Howitt for his hard work and excellent cooperation with the shadow rapporteurs, which produced the good report which we have in front of us.

Human rights have for a long time been at the centre of discussion in this Chamber. We had an overall agreement that human rights and democracy needed to be placed at the core of the EU’s internal and external policies. It is appropriate therefore that a substantial part of the annual report was devoted to stressing the crucial link between the two. Lessons learnt from the past show that the EU has a chance to make a difference in its external actions only with a consistent approach to democratisation and human rights protection.

I am glad the EU has a consolidated position on the death penalty. I call on the High Representative to use all available diplomatic and policy instruments to urge those countries that still use capital punishment, such as Belarus, to abolish it or put a moratorium on its use.

Ulrike Lunacek (Verts/ALE). - Madam President, I would like to thank Lady Ashton for the comments she has made today on the report. I would also like to thank my colleague Mr Howitt for a very good report.

Let me refer to one issue that I am glad the committee accepted as an amendment, namely the need to set up civil society consultation mechanisms for all our instruments. I would like to speak specifically about the two amendments that some of us are going to table again for the vote tomorrow. These are Amendments 7 and 8 on the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

As an openly lesbian woman myself, I have seen so many such women around the world who are afraid, who cannot come out to their families, who cannot be open in school, in society or at work. I would urge EPP Members and others in this Parliament who voted against the part that was already in the report to vote in favour of these amendments, because the issue at stake is our common human rights. It is about the European Charter of Fundamental Rights – which I hope all of you subscribe to – which makes clear that discrimination is not part of what we should have in the European Union. So please vote in favour of that, and support all that the External Action Service – with the toolkit, Lady Ashton and others – is doing in order to make it possible for LGBT people to live without fear in this world.

Catherine Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. − Madam President, the honourable Members have ranged across a whole, important set of issues that fall under the universality of human rights. There are many many points that we can reflect upon. Let me, in the short time I have, try and pick up on a few of these.

First of all, may I say how pleased I am that Mr Sannikov and Mr Bondarenko have been released from prison in Belarus. We are in touch, and I hope that we may be seeing an opportunity with Belarus. This shows the strength of the European Union; it shows the importance of being decisive in what we do, and it shows more than anything that standing together is so important.

A number of honourable Members have rightly raised the importance of faith, belief, conviction; the ability to worship and exercise belief, faith or none. I agree with all the concerns that have been raised about the importance of making sure that this is a core part of the work that we do on human rights. This is why we will dedicate a chapter in the annual report specifically to that, so that it becomes part of our human rights work but is highlighted appropriately.

I hear what a number of colleagues have said about the situation in Egypt, and we will continue to keep a watchful eye on how this is evolving.

Mr Donskis talked about the subtle undermining of human rights. The challenge is to make sure that we focus not just on the most obvious ways, for example, the abolition of the death penalty (which is, as you know, something I consider to be a fundamental part of the work that we do), but also on the ways in which people are prevented from exercising their rights in more subtle ways. These two things are very important. They lead to that lack of dignity and respect that is core and fundamental to how we feel.

Mr Tavares, I just want to say to you that my message on Argentina had nothing to do with this debate. I was asked by Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra if I would say something before the debate began about Argentina because I cannot be here tomorrow.

I agree with you about the terrible situation in Guinea Bissau. It is why, even before the coup last Thursday, I put out a statement and called on all parties to respect the legitimate government, and I have been very strong in my condemnation of the coup. Those who are in prison should be released immediately, and we have suspended most of our aid to Guinea Bissau.

We are, of course, looking at how to make sure we can continue to give direct support to the people. But we will not support an illegitimate government, and I completely agree with you on that – but please do not think that I was trying to bring one issue into another. I really was not. It was a separate discussion before the debate.

I agree, too, that honourable Members have been in the forefront of wanting to see a special representative, and as you know I am currently working on the mandate for that person. We are looking for someone of enormous integrity and with great ability in this field. It will be an important role, and the appointee will need to have a good relationship with this House. This is something we want to continue to discuss.

I was very pleased to see that so many people mentioned the issues of women’s rights and the importance of continuing to support women, especially women going through extreme circumstances of horror and terror, but also women trying to engage in the political and economic lives of their countries. Very simplistically, we know that when women are engaged in society, societies are richer in every possible sense: economically, socially and politically, and the issue of forced marriages is one that affects many countries.

When I was a minister for human rights in the country I came from, I did legislation on forced marriages there. This is something we need to take seriously everywhere.

Mrs Ludford, I have already said before that we will look into that, but you know that I am deeply concerned about the use of the death penalty everywhere, especially, as I said to you earlier, over the 100 instances of the death penalty in Iran so far this year.

Mr Stevenson, you have been a champion on the issue of Camp Ashraf because of your concern for the people there. We are still in touch with Martin Kobler and are still pushing hard on Member States, and I need the help of MEPs to make sure that we can resettle as many people as possible. This is crucial, but we are also offering to support the UN financially in moving forward on this. So in a sense, the more I can rely on help from this House, the more I will be able to do. But you know how much I am concerned about this and how engaged we are on this.

In terms of South Africa on the point that was raised, we have agreed to launch a human rights dialogue with South Africa where we can raise a number of different issues.

I agree with what Mrs Gomes said about the importance of meeting with human rights activists. I try to do that in every country I visit in order to listen to them and hear from them about the situation on the ground and the realities of the life that they lead. I support fully the rights of lesbian, gay, transsexual and bisexual people, and this should be fully reflected in everything we do on human rights.

Such rights are universal. In terms of how we work with different countries, I have talked before about the spectrum of engagement to isolation and the importance of ensuring that human rights is one of the indicators of how we work with countries. We are often, as the honourable Members know, trying to work with people in countries in order to support them while also trying to isolate and put pressure on their governments. The spectrum really matters in that we do not abandon people who are desperately trying to obtain their rights, but we engage where we can. On that spectrum of engagement to isolation, where engagement can be more effective (and it very often is), we need to make sure that we are there, willing to put the pressure on to try and make the difference.

My final point is a bureaucratic one: benchmarking. We are working now on how to develop the methodology for this. We want to measure the performance, as a number of honourable Members have indicated. There is quite a long way to go, but the action plan may also be an opportunity for us to examine.

My final comment is to thank Richard Howitt again for the work he has done on this very important report. I know his personal conviction and commitment to this, and I pay tribute to that.

Richard Howitt, rapporteur. − Madam President, firstly I would like to thank Baroness Ashton for the commitment she has shown in this debate and her comments on her strong track record, her recognition of the importance of accountability, her commitment to involve Parliament in the inter-institutional declaration on the review and what she has said on forced marriages and measuring performance. I pay due credit to the EU’s positions in the United Nations, including on the death penalty, reflected in this debate and achieved under her leadership.

I would also like to repeat my thanks for all the compliments given in the debate – not least from the shadows – and place on record my support for Mr Grzyb’s proposal for business and human rights to be integrated in EU trade policy. I welcome both his and other contributions from the EPP Group: from Mr Brok, Ms Matera, Mr Kukan and Mrs Gál. They have shown that we can have cross-party consensus on the issues in this report.

To Ms Ludford I would say that the regular reports on the internal Council meetings on accession to the European Convention on Human Rights discussed both in this Parliament and in the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe make quite clear the UK’s opposition, and I am sorry that once again her party are making excuses for conservative anti-human rights positions. I hope that may change later his week, but I am not holding my breath.

Madam President, my thanks go to all who have quoted from my report stating that I am against double standards in human rights – they are right, and I have to say that goes for this debate; to Mr Claeys, who would win greater respect if he condemned both black and white murders in South Africa; and to Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra, who appears to support the rule of law in Argentina but not Colombia. Whilst I and my text strongly agree with the concerns expressed by MEPs Szymański, Belder, Kowal, Provera and Posselt on the persecution of Christians, it is important to say that this did not start with the Arab Spring. I hope they will join with me in condemning discrimination against all religions and beliefs in all countries at all times.

I welcome the contributions from my colleagues Ms De Keyser and Ms Costello on LGBT rights. It is wrong that homosexuality could be classified as a disease, and I hope that MEPs will vote for Amendments 7 and 8, which I have tabled to condemn this. I welcome the contributions from Mr Tavares and Ms Miranda on indigenous peoples’ rights, and I indicate to you my support for your oral amendment.

Finally, if High Representative Ashton’s arithmetic is correct, I have served as the 28th annual human rights rapporteur of this European Parliament since the first direct elections. I would like to thank colleagues sincerely for giving me the privilege of undertaking this role.

Presidente. − La discussione è chiusa.

La votazione si svolgerà mercoledì 18 aprile 2012.

Dichiarazioni scritte (articolo 149)

Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (S&D), in writing. – Human rights, democracy and the rule of law are core values of the EU and its founding Treaties. The Union’s commitment to supporting democracy and human rights in its external policies is affirmed by the EUR 1.1 billion committed to the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (2007-2013). While the EU’s contribution is certainly important, so is our interest to ensure that tax-payers’ money properly serves citizens of recipient countries and the EU’s interests and values. Our past experience shows that EU funds allocated to this purpose, in many cases, have yielded limited results for various reasons concerning time and effectiveness of the instruments used. With this in mind I welcome the review and analysis of the Union’s policy on related matters, as presented in the EU’s annual report on human rights and democracy. One desirable outcome from the annual report would be the formation of a common EU strategy on human rights with clear definitions of the actions, timetables and responsibilities of each of the European institutions. Such a strategy will certainly point the way forward to setting and attaining ambitious goals while holding the EU and recipient countries to greater accountability on the usage of funds and the results accomplished.

Tunne Kelam (PPE), in writing. – Today's debate is important because the European Parliament can send a practically unanimous message to the EU foreign ministers’ meeting next June which will adopt a Declaration on a new EU human rights strategy. What we need today is much more coherence in conducting the CFSP. That means moving human rights issues to the centre of our foreign relations. The role of the EU Member States in implementing the EU human rights policies should be clearly and bindingly articulated because the new strategy will bite only if all the 27 governments back it by their practical and coordinated policies.

I welcome the news that human rights focal points have been established in 116 EU foreign delegations by now. However, this has to be guaranteed by obligatory human rights training for all levels of the EEAS staff, including heads of delegations. Also performance reviews on human rights should become an integral part of annual evaluations of all EU diplomats. Finally I am satisfied that the aspect of freedom of religion has been included in the training provided to the relevant EU staff. This should be even more strongly reinforced and become one of the core issues in the human rights dialogues with third states.

Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – We should not only monitor obligations and rules governing adherence to human rights in the EU but take into account the specificities of separate countries. For example, in Latvia the parliament by recommendation of the government decided to increase the retirement age of Latvians just because of lack of funds in the social budget while ignoring the fact that, if Latvians retire at the age of 65 then the majority of them will not live to retirement age because the average age is 68 years for men in Latvia. What is more, after 55 it is very difficult to find a decent and well-paid job. I think that step by the Latvian Government and parliament violates the fundamental rights and freedoms of Latvian people since they are subject to unequal conditions in comparison to pensioners in France, Germany and other EU countries, where the average life duration is 80 years old, and the retirement age is 65. It means that on average throughout the EU a pensioner receives a pension for 15 years, but in Latvia from one to three years. To stop injustice it is necessary to take immediate measures on the reallocation of EU social funds in order to level the difference in pensions between old Member States and new Member States.

Kristiina Ojuland (ALDE), in writing. – Although I support the adoption of the European Parliament annual report on human rights in the world in 2010, I regret that it has been delayed to such a late date. I hope that in the future we will be able to be timelier in addressing the human rights situation in the world. Nevertheless, the report outlines a great number of issues that ought to be discussed in the Council. For example, the case of Sergey Magnitsky has not been properly brought up in the Council as it should have been after the adoption of the previous annual report. Instead the Russian authorities continue to persecute Sergey Magnitsky’s family and avoid bringing those responsible for his death to justice. I would call the High Representative to consider further action with regard to the case of Sergey Magnitsky, in particular setting targeted sanctions against the Russian officials who are to blame in the demise of this brave man who uncovered rampant corruption within the administration of the Russian Federation. The annual report is far too important to allow it to become another impotent document; therefore it must be backed up by concrete action.